Corina Kräuter1,2, Ursula Reiter1, Clemens Reiter1, Volha Nizhnikava1, Albrecht Schmidt3, Rudolf Stollberger2, Michael Fuchsjäger1, Gert Reiter1,4. 1. Division of General Radiology, Department of Radiology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. 2. Institute of Medical Engineering, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. 4. Research and Development, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics GmbH, Graz, Austria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) from dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI can be performed using a signal intensity model that incorporates T1 values of blood and myocardium. PURPOSE: To assess the impact of T1 values on pixelwise MBF quantification, specifically to evaluate the influence of 1) study population-averaged vs. subject-specific, 2) diastolic vs. systolic, and 3) regional vs. global myocardial T1 values. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. SUBJECTS: Fifteen patients with chronic coronary heart disease. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3T; modified Look-Locker inversion recovery for T1 mapping and saturation recovery gradient echo for DCE imaging, both acquired in a mid-ventricular short-axis slice in systole and diastole. ASSESSMENT: MBF was estimated using Fermi modeling and signal intensity nonlinearity correction with different T1 values: study population-averaged blood and myocardial, subject-specific systolic and diastolic, and segmental T1 values. Myocardial segments with perfusion deficits were identified visually from DCE series. STATISTICAL TESTS: The relationships between MBF parameters derived by different methods were analyzed by Bland-Altman analysis; corresponding mean values were compared by t-test. RESULTS: Using subject-specific diastolic T1 values, global diastolic MBF was 0.61 ± 0.13 mL/(min·g). It did not differ from global MBF derived from the study population-averaged T1 (P = 0.88), but the standard deviation of differences was large (0.07 mL/(min·g), 11% of mean MBF). Global diastolic and systolic MBF did not differ (P = 0.12), whereas global diastolic MBF using systolic (0.62 ± 0.13 mL/(min·g)) and diastolic T1 values differed (P < 0.05). If regional instead of global T1 values were used, segmental MBF was lower in segments with perfusion deficits (bias = -0.03 mL/(min·g), -7% of mean MBF, P < 0.05) but higher in segments without perfusion deficits (bias = 0.01 mL/(min·g), 1% of mean MBF, P < 0.05). DATA CONCLUSION: Whereas cardiac phase-specific T1 values have a minor impact on MBF estimates, subject-specific and myocardial segment-specific T1 values substantially affect MBF quantification. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 3.
BACKGROUND: Quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) from dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI can be performed using a signal intensity model that incorporates T1 values of blood and myocardium. PURPOSE: To assess the impact of T1 values on pixelwise MBF quantification, specifically to evaluate the influence of 1) study population-averaged vs. subject-specific, 2) diastolic vs. systolic, and 3) regional vs. global myocardial T1 values. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. SUBJECTS: Fifteen patients with chronic coronary heart disease. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3T; modified Look-Locker inversion recovery for T1 mapping and saturation recovery gradient echo for DCE imaging, both acquired in a mid-ventricular short-axis slice in systole and diastole. ASSESSMENT: MBF was estimated using Fermi modeling and signal intensity nonlinearity correction with different T1 values: study population-averaged blood and myocardial, subject-specific systolic and diastolic, and segmental T1 values. Myocardial segments with perfusion deficits were identified visually from DCE series. STATISTICAL TESTS: The relationships between MBF parameters derived by different methods were analyzed by Bland-Altman analysis; corresponding mean values were compared by t-test. RESULTS: Using subject-specific diastolic T1 values, global diastolic MBF was 0.61 ± 0.13 mL/(min·g). It did not differ from global MBF derived from the study population-averaged T1 (P = 0.88), but the standard deviation of differences was large (0.07 mL/(min·g), 11% of mean MBF). Global diastolic and systolic MBF did not differ (P = 0.12), whereas global diastolic MBF using systolic (0.62 ± 0.13 mL/(min·g)) and diastolic T1 values differed (P < 0.05). If regional instead of global T1 values were used, segmental MBF was lower in segments with perfusion deficits (bias = -0.03 mL/(min·g), -7% of mean MBF, P < 0.05) but higher in segments without perfusion deficits (bias = 0.01 mL/(min·g), 1% of mean MBF, P < 0.05). DATA CONCLUSION: Whereas cardiac phase-specific T1 values have a minor impact on MBF estimates, subject-specific and myocardial segment-specific T1 values substantially affect MBF quantification. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 3.
Authors: John J V McMurray; Stamatis Adamopoulos; Stefan D Anker; Angelo Auricchio; Michael Böhm; Kenneth Dickstein; Volkmar Falk; Gerasimos Filippatos; Cândida Fonseca; Miguel Angel Gomez-Sanchez; Tiny Jaarsma; Lars Køber; Gregory Y H Lip; Aldo Pietro Maggioni; Alexander Parkhomenko; Burkert M Pieske; Bogdan A Popescu; Per K Rønnevik; Frans H Rutten; Juerg Schwitter; Petar Seferovic; Janina Stepinska; Pedro T Trindade; Adriaan A Voors; Faiez Zannad; Andreas Zeiher; Jeroen J Bax; Helmut Baumgartner; Claudio Ceconi; Veronica Dean; Christi Deaton; Robert Fagard; Christian Funck-Brentano; David Hasdai; Arno Hoes; Paulus Kirchhof; Juhani Knuuti; Philippe Kolh; Theresa McDonagh; Cyril Moulin; Bogdan A Popescu; Zeljko Reiner; Udo Sechtem; Per Anton Sirnes; Michal Tendera; Adam Torbicki; Alec Vahanian; Stephan Windecker; Theresa McDonagh; Udo Sechtem; Luis Almenar Bonet; Panayiotis Avraamides; Hisham A Ben Lamin; Michele Brignole; Antonio Coca; Peter Cowburn; Henry Dargie; Perry Elliott; Frank Arnold Flachskampf; Guido Francesco Guida; Suzanna Hardman; Bernard Iung; Bela Merkely; Christian Mueller; John N Nanas; Olav Wendelboe Nielsen; Stein Orn; John T Parissis; Piotr Ponikowski Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Hui Xue; Saurabh Shah; Andreas Greiser; Christoph Guetter; Arne Littmann; Marie-Pierre Jolly; Andrew E Arai; Sven Zuehlsdorff; Jens Guehring; Peter Kellman Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-08-29 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Daniel R Messroghli; James C Moon; Vanessa M Ferreira; Lars Grosse-Wortmann; Taigang He; Peter Kellman; Julia Mascherbauer; Reza Nezafat; Michael Salerno; Erik B Schelbert; Andrew J Taylor; Richard Thompson; Martin Ugander; Ruud B van Heeswijk; Matthias G Friedrich Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2017-10-09 Impact factor: 5.364